Netflix introduces password sharing household controls

Forums › Online streaming services › Netflix introduces password sharing household controls

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 31

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3031449 3-Feb-2023 19:05

scuwp:

On global customer stats I can find online in a hurry, even at 3 mil that's an inconsequential 0.01% of their customers. They won't bat an eyelid. Also, it's not about subscribers, it about profitability.

Also that won't happen. It may be topical now because a vocal few are reacting on social media, creating some inflated sense of a global outrage that simply doesn't exist. The majority of customers I would say will just accept the changes as inevitable and get on with worrying about life's bigger problems. Once the initial outrage settles down, my bet is that they will probably have more subscribers.

I have some teen or near teen family members freeloading off my account, I pay more , I'm ok wth that. if the rules change, they can re evaluate. But thats a long way away, lets see how it goes. Ideally Netflix has everything that exists, for $20 a month, I'm in. :-)

Let supply and demand run its course

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#3031460 3-Feb-2023 19:18

networkn:
Well that changes everything! They should file for chapter 11 immediately!

I wasn’t suggesting anything like that, but there is a huge difference between 0.01% and 1.35% when looking at a company’s revenue.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3031463 3-Feb-2023 19:32

Paul1977:
networkn:
Well that changes everything! They should file for chapter 11 immediately!

I wasn’t suggesting anything like that, but there is a huge difference between 0.01% and 1.35% when looking at a company’s revenue.

Its 1.34%, quite minuscule. Or its 135 times higher. IMO its small. They grew by growing numbers, now they can tighten the stats up somewhat. If they were smart they would be tough on freeloaders and reduce the price elsewhere, but even thats not easy as SVOD is fragmented.It will sort itself out

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#3031469 3-Feb-2023 20:01

It doesn’t impact me as I don’t share my password, but I just think when you’re paying for a fixed number of simultaneous streams you should be able to use them as you please.

I’m paying for up to 4 people to view Netflix at once. Why should it matter if they are all in my house? It’s still limited by the number of streams that I am paying for.

And they aren’t really freeloaders when Netflix themselves encouraged the practice for years. I’m sure there are loads of accounts where people pay half each, which of them is the freeloader in those instances?

It just seems like an obvious money grab to me.

Handle9

11924 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9675

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3031471 3-Feb-2023 20:06

Paul1977:

It just seems like an obvious money grab to me.

That's the point of a business, to grab money. Shareholders want to maximise their return, which is fair enough.

Netflix have made the calculation that this will be better for them than allowing password sharing. Customers can decide whether that still offers value. They are also able to give feedback, which a number are doing.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3031480 3-Feb-2023 20:34

Paul1977:

It just seems like an obvious money grab to me.

Perhaps this way. Passively allow more users to view despite breaking the T+C's, then reign it in. Spread the word. If you like it you will pay for it. If you like it but its not worth it, you wont. Done.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3031538 3-Feb-2023 21:33

Handle9:

The sneering in this thread is pretty gross.

If you think Netflix new policy is fine and still offers the value you want, good for you. If others are in a different position that's their value judgement.

This isn't a change in policy based on any moral imperative, it's a change to bolster their collapsing stock price and stagnant growth rate. There's no moral aspect to this on either side, Netflix implicitly encouraged password sharing for years and now they want to monetise those ~~customers~~ freeloaders. That's their business and if customers now find it doesn't offer value they should leave.

Expecting customers to quietly accept a significant reduction in value is dumb, why shouldn't customers complain if the value offered is reduced?

The sneering pales in comparison to the whining. Expecting a business to sustain 1/3 of it's viewers who aren't paying a cent for the service is frankly laughable. The other day one of the local radio stations did asked people to call in and survey who was sharing their NF password, and the lengths and widths of some of the sharing defied belief. An aunties third cousins gardeners sisters boyfriends uncle type stuff.

If you think Netflix new policy is fine and still offers the value you want, good for you. If others are in a different position that's their value judgement.

The exact same thing applies in reverse.

Handle9

11924 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9675

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3031541 3-Feb-2023 21:43

networkn:

Handle9:

The sneering in this thread is pretty gross.

If you think Netflix new policy is fine and still offers the value you want, good for you. If others are in a different position that's their value judgement.

This isn't a change in policy based on any moral imperative, it's a change to bolster their collapsing stock price and stagnant growth rate. There's no moral aspect to this on either side, Netflix implicitly encouraged password sharing for years and now they want to monetise those customers freeloaders. That's their business and if customers now find it doesn't offer value they should leave.

Expecting customers to quietly accept a significant reduction in value is dumb, why shouldn't customers complain if the value offered is reduced?

The sneering pales in comparison to the whining. Expecting a business to sustain 1/3 of it's viewers who aren't paying a cent for the service is frankly laughable. The other day one of the local radio stations did asked people to call in and survey who was sharing their NF password, and the lengths and widths of some of the sharing defied belief. An aunties third cousins gardeners sisters boyfriends uncle type stuff.

If you think Netflix new policy is fine and still offers the value you want, good for you. If others are in a different position that's their value judgement.

The exact same thing applies in reverse.

They aren't "freeloaders." It's not a pirated stream. The subscription was paid for and Netflix recognised revenue from it.

Netflix has historically implicitly encouraged sharing of accounts.

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3031543 3-Feb-2023 21:53

Handle9:

They aren't "freeloaders." It's not a pirated stream. The subscription was paid for and Netflix recognised revenue from it.

Netflix has historically implicitly encouraged sharing of accounts.

Implicitly encouraged (with it being pretty clear it was intended for immediate family) and having someone share to their Ex Flat mate's ex-girlfriend's uncle who lives in a different city are two different things.

When your "shared" accounts make up 1/3 of your paying customers it's pretty clear that people are abusing the system, and like with all situations like this, a few (hundred thousand) bad apples ruin it for everyone.

Most services don't offer incremental increases for additional users. Want a new MS365 user? That's a whole new license at full price, want another, lets go again at full price.

For some people, no matter how little they pay it's too much, rightly so, businesses are pretty much trying to get rid of that segment of their customer bases.

Handle9

11924 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9675

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3031549 3-Feb-2023 22:02

It wasn't "clear it was intended for immediate family." Netflix has known for a long time that this was happening and encouraged it. Customers weren't "abusing the system," they were buying what was offered. If Netflix had seen it in their best interested previously they would have made it more difficult to share passwords but they decided it was better for them to allow it. There was the same situation with geoblocking, Netflix couldn't have cared less until the content owners made them care.

The only reason they care now is their growth has topped out and their share price tanked.

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3031555 3-Feb-2023 22:19

Handle9:

It wasn't "clear it was intended for immediate family." Netflix has known for a long time that this was happening and encouraged it. Customers weren't "abusing the system," they were buying what was offered. If Netflix had seen it in their best interested previously they would have made it more difficult to share passwords but they decided it was better for them to allow it. There was the same situation with geoblocking, Netflix couldn't have cared less until the content owners made them care.

The only reason they care now is their growth has topped out and their share price tanked.

Seemed pretty clear to me. Never in a million years would I have assumed that implicitly encouraging sharing your NF password meant giving it to my aunt's boyfriends nieces flatmate who lives in a different city or country.. That's just... taking the piss. Also, if I was sharing it with my InLaws and they were giving it reasonable use, enough that the new system would inconvenience them, then $5 a month for them to use it seems incredibly reasonable.

1/3 of the people who stream aren't paying for a subscription. Does your business allow 1/3 of it's customers to not pay when it uses company resources? Nope? Didn't think so.

If people hadn't of abused it, there wouldn't be enough money to be made from cracking down on it to make it worth the cost of policing it. It's simple once you think about it for a couple of minutes.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

Handle9

11924 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9675

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3031559 3-Feb-2023 22:30

You keep parroting that 1/3 of subscribers aren't paying for a subscription. That isn't correct.

I'm guessing you skim read a headline of the Leichtman Research group and assumed it fit whatever preconceived idea you had.

The streams that customers are using are paid for. They aren't pirated or stolen, they are paid for streams.

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3031564 3-Feb-2023 22:50

Handle9:

You keep parroting that 1/3 of subscribers aren't paying for a subscription. That isn't correct.

I am not saying that actually. People who use a service they don't pay for, aren't called subscribers.

I'm guessing you skim read a headline of the Leichtman Research group and assumed it fit whatever preconceived idea you had.

Wrong again.

The streams that customers are using are paid for. They aren't pirated or stolen, they are paid for streams.

You keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. It's pretty obvious they didn't intend for people to share their household NF account outside their household, and certainly not in the manner and breadth of which is it done by many. But even if you are right, they are entitled to change their mind based on the number of streams vs the number of paid subscriptions that they want to maintain. It's irrelevant what the motivation is, it's their playground, their rules. They have obviously done the sums and think there is enough financial incentive to go down this route. Most companies would have said, every household, $20 a month, instead they have found a pretty decent value alternative by asking additional households to pay 25% of the original subscription price.

If the numbers of people who were going outside of what was intended weren't so high, then the financial gain wouldn't be worthwhile to implement and police a system like this and still make a profit. That should tell you everything you need to know about how many people are streaming using a shared account password vs having their own (even if it's not 100M).

Handle9

11924 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9675

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3031565 3-Feb-2023 22:53

Where did the 1/3 number come from if it's not from the Leichman Research Group report?

ajw

1968 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 369

#3031652 4-Feb-2023 09:58

https://www.tomsguide.com/opinion/netflixs-password-sharing-crackdown-already-feels-like-a-disaster-and-it-hasnt-launched-yet

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 31